|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 12:53:17 GMT -6
czhrs
No, he would still be court-martialled, but if he thought it was immoral, he should take his punishment if his superiors don't agree with him/her.
Doesn't matter...most Soldiers and officers treated all with a Christian attitude and approach, overlayed with a dose of chivalry and honor.
The campaign began with an offense by the Natives...the bullets will often fly astray. It is hard to tell who the friendlies, the neutrals, and hostiles are.
But the Army was out there, looking for blood, because of hostilities by the other party.
It was often the case that when one tribe went berserk, the neutral tribes in the area that didn't want any part of the Army response that was sure to come cleared out of the area, or huddled next to the agency for protection from the Soldiers.
If you were out there on your own while an Army column was looking for hostiles, you could be in trouble. The Army isn't that precise.
That is still true today in Afghanistan, for example.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 11, 2009 13:15:21 GMT -6
<The campaign began with an offense by the Natives...the bullets will often fly astray. It is hard to tell who the friendlies, the neutrals, and hostiles are>
Not true . . . Grattan fired first on the Indians. The warriors responded and killed the soldiers.
Self defense . . . right?
Blue Thunder had nothing to do with the Grattan Massacre. They were just another group of Indians. Didn't matter . . . they were Indians. The US's policy of attacking all Indians instead of the guilty ones was a failure that led to more innocent Indians being killed than guilty.
The Canadian policy was to go after the guilty party rather than the tribe. The Canadian government did not have one major Indian War other than the Metis episode. And they were a large group of mixed-bloods who had adapted to the ways of the White Man.
<But the Army was out there, looking for blood, because of hostilities by the other party>
Looking for blood?! What the heck kind of military is that? That leads to killing of innocents, non-coms and destruction of those who may want to side with you. What happened to discipline & organization?
Can't you see why many Indians were afraid to have soldiers get close to villages and/or their families? Why they were afraid to give up their weapons when they knew soldiers would kill indiscrimanently?
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 13:51:02 GMT -6
crzhrs
No...resisting arrest. I don't know why a Soldier fired, being as they were surrounded by hundreds of armed Warriors, and Lt Grattan himself seemed already to be trying to get out of the situation.
In any case, a bunch of Soldiers went to arrest a Warrior, and the Soldiers ended up being massacred to the last man.
So out comes the Army. Not much wonder.
I'm not sure what you call an "innocent" Indian. Innocent of what? You can tell me that Blue Thunder had no white scalps hanging in his tipis? I doubt that...
Again, this is not a police action. This is war. If you are from one society, armed, and out in the theater of operations, you are a combatant, not an "innocent."
Yes, a very different situation. The RCMP really were policemen, and the Natives up there were docile and few enough to treat any transgressions as a police action.
This was not true south of the Missouri.
It is the most common tactic, then and today. We call it "search and destroy," and I can send you excerts on it from our current manuals, if you wish.
A milder version is "cordon and search," which is much like what the Army did back then to disarm a village. We do it every week in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Soldiers NEVER killed "indiscrimantely."
And yes, the Native villages had very good reason to be afraid whenever cavalry columns were in the area, whether they were friendly, neutral, or hostile, unless they were right on the reservation and not stirring up trouble. That was rather the idea.
Today, we call it "stability operations."
Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 11, 2009 14:02:34 GMT -6
Here is the modern version of our Cavalry operations on the Plains. How does it relate to what they did then?
SEARCH AND ATTACK
6-25. Search and attack is one technique for conducting a MTC. It is most often used when operating within noncontiguous areas of operation. The BCT conducts this form of movement to contact to destroy enemy forces, deny the enemy certain areas, protect the force, or collect information. Search and attack can be executed at any level above platoon, but typically is conducted by company-sized elements in battalion-sized AOs. The BCT may task its subordinate units to conduct the following missions: Locate enemy positions or habitually traveled routes. Destroy enemy forces within its capability, or fix and/or block the enemy until reinforcements arrive. Maintain surveillance of a larger enemy force through stealth until reinforcements arrive. Search urban areas. Secure military or civilian property or installations. Eliminate enemy influence within the AO.
6-26. The battalion is the basic operational unit in search and attack operations. Battalions conduct search and attack when the enemy is operating in small, dispersed elements, or when the task is to deny the enemy movement in an area. The BCT assists by ensuring the availability of adequate supporting fires, mobile transportation assets, timely and accurate intelligence, and reserve forces. BNs accomplish search and attack operations by organizing the brigade into find, fix, and finish forces; each of these forces has a specific task and purpose. The finish force is the main effort. Some considerations for conducting search and attack operations include: intelligence preparation of the battlefield, task organization, isolation of enemy forces, supporting fires, and decentralized C2. The following paragraphs provide more information about these considerations.
Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield
6-27. The intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) process is critical to search and attack operations. The BCT does not usually have the luxury of conducting a police call type search of the zone. The S2 must focus the brigade’s search efforts on likely enemy locations, and refine the enemy SITEMP as new information becomes available.
Task Organization
6-28. In search and attack operations, the BCT commander first task organizes the finish force, and uses the anticipated size of the enemy to ensure that the force has enough combat power to accomplish its assigned task. The finish force may move at some distance behind the find force, or it may be at a pickup zone (PZ) and air assault to the objective once the enemy is located. The air assault technique is dependent on the availability of LZs near the objective, weather, and availability of aircraft. The S2 must provide the commander with his estimate of how long it will take the enemy to displace, thus helping to ensure that the finish force reaches the objective before the enemy can displace.
6-29. The size of the find force depends on the degree of certainty associated with the enemy ternplate. The vaguer the situation is, the larger the find force will be. The find force can consist of infantry, air, and electronic assets. It usually uses zone reconnaissance techniques to reconnoiter NAIs identified by the S2. The brigade fix-and-finish plan must consider the possibility of the find forces being compromised.
6-30. The BCT can rotate units through the find, fix, and finish roles, but the main effort remains the finish force. Rotating roles may require a change in task organization and additional time for rehearsal.
Isolate the Enemy
6-31. The fix force isolates the enemy once the find force finds it. It blocks both escape and reinforcement routes. The fix force incorporates indirect fires into the fix plan; it also blocks routes that the S2 identified. Depending on the mobility of the enemy and the likelihood of the find force being compromised, the fix force might have to be emplaced before the find force enters the AO.
Supporting Fires
6-32. Available FS must provide flexible, rapid support throughout the area of operations. This includes the ability to clear fires rapidly. To clear fires rapidly, units must track and report the locations of the unit’s subordinate units. The capability must exist to mass fires quickly in support of the main effort. Because of the uncertainty of the enemy situation the commander avoids command or support relationships that prevent shifting assets when necessary. Supporting fires should be flexible and destructive. They should also enhance the ability of a highly mobile attack force to destroy an enemy force located and fixed by other forces.
Decentralized Command and Control
6-33. The brigade commander provides the necessary control, but he permits decentralized actions and small-unit initiative to the greatest extent possible. This includes establishing the proper graphic control measures to control movement, and the synchronization of all brigade assets to enhance combat power.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 12, 2009 1:26:08 GMT -6
Conz
Here is the modern version of our Cavalry operations on the Plains. How does it relate to what they did then
It's a bit vague and too brief to make a comparison.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 5:59:11 GMT -6
Custer is making a movement to contact as part of a search and attack mission.
He has Benteen's and Reno's battalions out as "find" forces. He retains two battalions as the "finish" force.
Note especially the repeated admonitions for the find force to "fix" the enemy so that the finish force can come in a destroy it.
Note that it includes "civilian property or installations" as targets.
Not much about the niceties of avoiding civilian casualties in this tactics part. The Army trains on that best it can, as time allows, once it finishes all the training on these tactics, and more.
There is a lot to do.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 12, 2009 6:59:22 GMT -6
The brigade fix-and-finish plan must consider the possibility of the find forces being compromised
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2009 7:03:12 GMT -6
<No...resisting arrest. I don't know why a Soldier fired, being as they were surrounded by hundreds of armed Warriors, and Lt Grattan himself seemed already to be trying to get out of the situation>
You need to read exactly what happened regarding the Grattan Massacre. The military violated the treaty by sending soldiers regarding the "Mormon Cow" issue. The treaty stated that any disagreements was to be resolved by the Indian Agent, NOT the military.
Grattan was unaware of warriors who had gone into concealment to see what the military was going to do. Conquering Bear, the chief, tried negotiating, even offering many of his best horses in payment for the slain cow. Grattan, who some said, had either been drinking or was drunk refused to negotiate and for some reason ordered his men to fire.
The military violated the treaty and started a fight when negotiations would have resolved the issue.
<I'm not sure what you call an "innocent" Indian. Innocent of what? You can tell me that Blue Thunder had no white scalps hanging in his tipis? I doubt that...>
This wasn't about scalps. Can you prove there were any scalps in the village. And who's? Sorta like there were WMDs. Typical of your kind of who look for any means for starting a war.
You generalize way to much in defending the military's action. It's not as black and white as you and your kind portray.
There are always two sides of an issue and in most cases can be resolved with talking rather than clubbing someone over the head because they are "stubborn" and want to preserve their way of life.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2009 7:08:20 GMT -6
<Soldiers NEVER killed "indiscrimantely.">
Here we go again with your generalizations.
Never? While I respect those who serve(d) . . . not everyone in the military is honorable, loyal, mentally stable, a hero, or even patriotic. Many even succumb to the stress invovled and end up commiting atrocities. It happened and it continues to happen.
|
|
|
Post by lew on May 12, 2009 7:47:14 GMT -6
ON April 29, 1945,during the liberation of Dachau. 1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead, a "full-blooded Cherokee Indian" who was the Executive Officer of I Company, 3rd Battalion, 157th Infantry Regiment, was responsible for killing 346 unarmed Waffen-SS soldiers, who had their hands in the air. "Lt. Bushyhead was avenging the wrong that had been done to the native population of America by the white settlers; his people had been brutally uprooted from their ancestral homes in Georgia and North Carolina and forced to walk more than a thousand miles to Oklahoma on the "trail of tears" where they had "perished in untold numbers and without retribution." According to Col. Buechner, Lt. Bushyhead felt a kinship with the Jews who had also been "harassed and driven from country to country for thousands of years." www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauLiberation/BuechnerAccount.html
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 8:12:06 GMT -6
<Soldiers NEVER killed "indiscrimantely."> Here we go again with your generalizations. Never? While I respect those who serve(d) . . . not everyone in the military is honorable, loyal, mentally stable, a hero, or even patriotic. Many even succumb to the stress invovled and end up commiting atrocities. It happened and it continues to happen. I know...I was just reacting to the statement that "Soldiers killed indiscriminately." I'm not sure what you call "indescriminate." I don't think ANYONE, EVER, kills ANYONE indescriminately. They always have a reason for shooting. Soldiers killed people for a reason. They are trained to kill people given certain causes for using deadly force. This application of force is not "by target," as in the police world. It is by "group" and "area," where you tend to destroy everything in an area as quickly as possible without even taking pause to think...that is efficiency in killing. That's where training starts, because it HAS to. Once units learn to do this very well, with whatever time and ammunition you have left to train, you try to teach young men how to be more careful with spraying your bullets at everything that moves, and to try to avoid the women and children that might be within range of your carbines. You think that is easy? Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 12, 2009 8:20:21 GMT -6
ON April 29, 1945,during the liberation of Dachau. 1st Lt. Jack Bushyhead, a "full-blooded Cherokee Indian" who was the Executive Officer of I Company, 3rd Battalion, 157th Infantry Regiment, was responsible for killing 346 unarmed Waffen-SS soldiers, who had their hands in the air. "Lt. Bushyhead was avenging the wrong that had been done to the native population of America by the white settlers; his people had been brutally uprooted from their ancestral homes in Georgia and North Carolina and forced to walk more than a thousand miles to Oklahoma on the "trail of tears" where they had "perished in untold numbers and without retribution." According to Col. Buechner, Lt. Bushyhead felt a kinship with the Jews who had also been "harassed and driven from country to country for thousands of years." www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauLiberation/BuechnerAccount.htmlA good war crimes example, in this case conducted by a couple officers of a National Guard division, made up of many Native Americans. My grandfather, BTW, was a battalion commander in that division at the time, and remembers that camp very well. A couple officers attempted some "vigilante justice" here, but it was halted by more senior officers. Army investigators determined that most likely 30-50 prisoners were killed after surrendering, with their guards claiming they were trying to escape. Several officers were brought up on charges by the Army, but Patton, their Army commander, dismissed them when the war ended. The crimes have been attributed to the horrific stress of encounting the extermination camp at Dachau, and anger at the earlier massacre of American POWs by SS troops during the Battle of the Bulge. Live by the sword, die by the sword. People generally get treated the way that they deserve, although the Army tries to do better than committing crimes due to vengeance. It is hard to hold the men back sometimes, but that's why they pay the officers the big bucks. Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2009 8:20:25 GMT -6
Lew:
You left out the rest of the story that states that many other GIs (White) killed or assisted in killing German soldiers, either directly or indirectly.
Your point by just using a Cherokee Indian?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2009 8:22:23 GMT -6
<They always have a reason for shooting>
Soldiers can come up with a reason for shooting someone . . . most of it justified, other times it's not.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 12, 2009 8:37:50 GMT -6
While it's fully understandable about the retaliation by US troops against Nazi guards/German soldiers it also reveals the types of things that occur when War happens.
I think Winston Churchill stated it best about making sure that when you start a war you are fully aware of all the unknowns that are going to happen. And when they do happen don't be surprised or horrified.
War is not glorious and it brings out the worse in human nature.
|
|